This weekend I saw the latest movie from the Damien Chazelle-Ryan Gosling collaboration, First Man. It's good -- yes, it deserves a Best Picture Nomination (I'll save judgment on whether it should win).
If you don't know, First Man is the story is Neil Armstrong, and it's about the his walk on the moon. Sort of. It takes almost 2 hours to get there.
Gosling (obviously?) plays Armstrong, who we pick up as a rocket pilot in the early 60s. It's not clear that everyone thinks he's a great pilot.
Since this is biographical, there's no need to worry about spoilers: the Armstrongs lose a daughter, Karen, to a brain tumor, before she's 2ish. As Jane Armstrong says later "we never talked about it."
That's kind of the thing about the movie: Gosling's Armstrong isn't exactly winning a warm and fuzzy award. In fact, lukewarm and furry wouldn't do it.
But there's no doubting both Armstrong's inner strength, his mental acuity, and his cool under fire. At one point he tells Houston and his co-pilot "shut up, I am calculating."
When Buzz Aldrin's character says "I am just saying what you were all thinking," Armstrong's one-beat, two-beat, three-beat later rejoinder is "maybe you shouldn't."
As the movie portrays it, and Wikipedia backs it up, in both the Gemini 8 mission and the trip to the moon, Armstrong did things you have to call amazing. If you don't remember (I vaguely do), Gemini 8 went sour when the capsule started spinning out of control. Armstrong, in the movie with his co-pilot passed out, figured out how to make the necessary correction, eventhough he used some of the fuel for course adjustments back into the atmosphere to do so. They aborted the mission from there, but made it home safely.
On the moon landing, Aldrin isn't sure where they should land, as the proposed spot is too rocky, and Armstrong uses every last bit of fuel to land on the other side of the crater -- now forever Tranquillity base.
I heard much stuff about how the movie could not depict the flag planting on the moon -- "you HAVE to show that." I didn't even notice it was missing. I'm sure someone can explain why it's not there (like it's not important to Armstrong's story).
As to Oscar bait, Gosling is excellent as Armstrong. Deserves an Oscar nod. As you can tell, Armstrong isn't exactly a ball of joy -- Gosling keeps it all bottled up all the time.
Given the cleverness and vividness of some of the shots, especially on the moon, Chazelle probably will get some best director nods. I'm okay with that, but there might be better candidates coming along.
Claire Foy as Mrs. Armstrong? She's almost as tightly wound as Gosling, so sure. It would probably be tough for any actor to be so brittle.
Should you see it? Yes. Both the history, Gosling's portrayal of someone who is a real hero (he and co-pilot should be dead in Gemini 8), and the beauty and inventiveness of some of the cinematography make it worth seeing. Is it better than A Star is Born? If you don't like Bradley Cooper. Lady Gaga, or singing in a movie, definitely.
That's 2 for the fall.
Now...what's opening this weekend?
Monday, October 15, 2018
Fall Movie Reviews: A Star is Born
Okay, it's that time of year when the "Oscar bait" (as my daughter calls it) is rolled out by the studios and "grown up" movies are coming out. So, since it seems I will probably be going to the movies regularly in the next few weeks (I've been twice in the last week), I thought I'd put some of my views of the movies down on blog (and share via Twitter -- and fwd to THE Dbrolaw, to annoy him :)).
First up is the Bradley Cooper joint A Star is Born.
I have to start with this admission: I was not thrilled to go see this. I know the story. I'm not in love with Bradley Cooper (ICYMI :)) & even the previews looked...okay, let's say "hokie."
It's a hokie kind of story. Bring kleenexes.
Let's make sure we all know that this is the fourth remake of this story: in the 30s with Janet Gaynor, in the 50s with Julie Garland (there are several allusions to her and that movie in this one), and in the 70s with Barbara Streisand. And Kris Kristofferson, who played, not too far out of type, the alcohol-soaked, nearly over-the-hill male lead.
So, this is old news.
I was pleasantly surprised by both Cooper and Lady Gaga's performances. Cooper is quite good as Jack; he's weather-beaten, vaguely sweaty and dirty, like the not-neat drunk he is in the movie, and he does a good job of getting us into his pain in the movie.
I'm not sure Gaga can act. I'm just saying. But the best parts of the movie, period, are when she's on stage singing, from her opening reveal in the drag bar to her scenes using her big voice in the fake concert scenes. She's enthralling then. A lot less so when she's trying to be...whatever she's trying to be with Jack.
The movie seems long. At 2 hours, 16 minutes, it's not a short comedy. I looked at my watch repeatedly. This is probably because I know the story: it's not going to end well. They meet, he likes her, he gets her career going, she becomes a star (thus the title), he doesn't know how to handle her fame and his deterioration, and...I'll leave it this way on this version: shit happens.
And I'll say this: the songs aren't good. Gaga can perform the hell out of them, but if I listened to the lyrics I was like "that's the dumbest metaphor I've heard in a long time."
So, should you go see it? If you have one movie to see this weekend, no. Unless you HAVE to see Gaga and/or Brad. But if you are a regular movie goer, yes.
As to the Oscar bait question: yes, Gaga and Cooper deserve nominations.
One down. More to come.
First up is the Bradley Cooper joint A Star is Born.
I have to start with this admission: I was not thrilled to go see this. I know the story. I'm not in love with Bradley Cooper (ICYMI :)) & even the previews looked...okay, let's say "hokie."
It's a hokie kind of story. Bring kleenexes.
Let's make sure we all know that this is the fourth remake of this story: in the 30s with Janet Gaynor, in the 50s with Julie Garland (there are several allusions to her and that movie in this one), and in the 70s with Barbara Streisand. And Kris Kristofferson, who played, not too far out of type, the alcohol-soaked, nearly over-the-hill male lead.
So, this is old news.
I was pleasantly surprised by both Cooper and Lady Gaga's performances. Cooper is quite good as Jack; he's weather-beaten, vaguely sweaty and dirty, like the not-neat drunk he is in the movie, and he does a good job of getting us into his pain in the movie.
I'm not sure Gaga can act. I'm just saying. But the best parts of the movie, period, are when she's on stage singing, from her opening reveal in the drag bar to her scenes using her big voice in the fake concert scenes. She's enthralling then. A lot less so when she's trying to be...whatever she's trying to be with Jack.
The movie seems long. At 2 hours, 16 minutes, it's not a short comedy. I looked at my watch repeatedly. This is probably because I know the story: it's not going to end well. They meet, he likes her, he gets her career going, she becomes a star (thus the title), he doesn't know how to handle her fame and his deterioration, and...I'll leave it this way on this version: shit happens.
And I'll say this: the songs aren't good. Gaga can perform the hell out of them, but if I listened to the lyrics I was like "that's the dumbest metaphor I've heard in a long time."
So, should you go see it? If you have one movie to see this weekend, no. Unless you HAVE to see Gaga and/or Brad. But if you are a regular movie goer, yes.
As to the Oscar bait question: yes, Gaga and Cooper deserve nominations.
One down. More to come.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
5-12 411
Before Thursday's games: Diagnosed with a variation of flu, so I've got cabin fever and have watched too many games the last week (Big Ten tourney, did I really watch WCC semis? play-in games...and spent too much time watching OU-Ok State last night [OU doesn't act like they want to win]), and decided to look into which of these "bubble teams" can win a game or two next week (in March Madness).
So, using Joe Lunardi's bracket, let me walk you through some of these possible games:
First, it's become "a thing" that someone wins a play-in game (I mean "round 1," sorry NCAA) and then wins the next game. Last year it was USC. Lunardi has OU playing Arizona St (say "no defense") and Louisville playing UCLA. UCLA has the elements to win in March -- a good guard (Halliday), a big (Welsch), and a coach (Alford). Yes, I know Alford has never quite hit it big, and last year I thought he was a liability when they were a sexy pick to make the Final 4, but he'll be the better coach in these two games.
They would play TCU. I like the Bruins to win that game. Ka-boom!
In the 5-12 matchups -- 12's have won at least one game going back forever (not in 2015, but that's the outlier). Here are Lunardi's matchups (as of today):
Florida-New Mexico St.
Clemson-Louisiana
Ohio St-Loyola Chicago
West Virginia-Middle Tennessee.
First, I look at these and they look more like 7-10s...I can see all 4 winning. New Mexico St is a sexy mid-major pick; Loyola has a senior dominated team; so does Middle Tennessee, who won a game last year, and has a guard (Potts), a big (King), and a coach (Alexander).
The most likely upset there is probably the Blue Raiders over West Virginia. The Mountaineers are up and down -- the buzz is that if you can beat their press and/or shut them down some, they become ineffective in a slow, grind it game. Middle Tennessee can do that. (On the other hand, I picked WVU to go to F4 on Obvious Brothers podcast (soundcloud.com/obviousbrothers) two weeks ago).
And, BTWs, I don't know a thing about "Louisiana." But I don't trust Clemson, who I think is very overrated -- I have seen no one pick them to win their first game in ACC (v. Boston College, the 12 seed). I might pick against them just because next week.
Now, about the other bubble teams:
Finally, a plug: if you are wanting a podcast hoops analysis, my go-to is @STheSPodcast or blogtalkradio.com/sthespodcast . -- Gus and Mike are, as they say, college BB narcoleptics (they are doing almost an hour pod every day this week!) -- Mike has down 4 mock brackets already! check them out if you want good info and just mostly no BS analysis from studious fans.
So, using Joe Lunardi's bracket, let me walk you through some of these possible games:
First, it's become "a thing" that someone wins a play-in game (I mean "round 1," sorry NCAA) and then wins the next game. Last year it was USC. Lunardi has OU playing Arizona St (say "no defense") and Louisville playing UCLA. UCLA has the elements to win in March -- a good guard (Halliday), a big (Welsch), and a coach (Alford). Yes, I know Alford has never quite hit it big, and last year I thought he was a liability when they were a sexy pick to make the Final 4, but he'll be the better coach in these two games.
They would play TCU. I like the Bruins to win that game. Ka-boom!
In the 5-12 matchups -- 12's have won at least one game going back forever (not in 2015, but that's the outlier). Here are Lunardi's matchups (as of today):
Florida-New Mexico St.
Clemson-Louisiana
Ohio St-Loyola Chicago
West Virginia-Middle Tennessee.
First, I look at these and they look more like 7-10s...I can see all 4 winning. New Mexico St is a sexy mid-major pick; Loyola has a senior dominated team; so does Middle Tennessee, who won a game last year, and has a guard (Potts), a big (King), and a coach (Alexander).
The most likely upset there is probably the Blue Raiders over West Virginia. The Mountaineers are up and down -- the buzz is that if you can beat their press and/or shut them down some, they become ineffective in a slow, grind it game. Middle Tennessee can do that. (On the other hand, I picked WVU to go to F4 on Obvious Brothers podcast (soundcloud.com/obviousbrothers) two weeks ago).
And, BTWs, I don't know a thing about "Louisiana." But I don't trust Clemson, who I think is very overrated -- I have seen no one pick them to win their first game in ACC (v. Boston College, the 12 seed). I might pick against them just because next week.
Now, about the other bubble teams:
- OU has a lot of talent, but having watched them play the last few weeks, Trae Young thinks he's better than he is, the team doesn't make the simple plays (they missed two alley oops on fast breaks against OSU last night), and they play lots of torro defense. One bracket today has them an 8! (pick whoever is the 9 in that game) -- but they have a lot of "quadrant 1" wins, so will probably make the field.
- Ok St has less talent, but the Smith kid can play -- if he can stay in (fouled out last night against OU in a sloppy, not heady, performance). They might beat Kansas tonight in BXII tourney (KU lost their big yday), so they might be a hot pick for the first round (Lunardi has them in First Four out now).
- Notre Dame looks like Colson and 4 banjos. Don't think they belong. Lots of bad losses (IU, Ball State at home WITH Colson)...
- Syracuse...just no. The problem is they have the strength of schedule the committee loves. But they don't look like a team that can win. They lost to Notre Dame. And UNC burned them like toast last night.
- Alabama has a lot of talent, but needs to win tonight v. A&M. Without that, their losing streak (5) might kill them, tho committee no longer looks at "Last 10." They might win the right matchup next week, including being the hot pick out of the play-in game.
- Arizona State is like OU, resting on early season wins. At Xavier and Kansas. Were #2 in the country. I got a Sun Devils shirt when there in October, a KoD! But losing to Colorado in opening round of Pac-12 (the conference of Champions!) doesn't help. A play-in game with OU or Ok State would be fun, though. Watchable.
Finally, a plug: if you are wanting a podcast hoops analysis, my go-to is @STheSPodcast or blogtalkradio.com/sthespodcast . -- Gus and Mike are, as they say, college BB narcoleptics (they are doing almost an hour pod every day this week!) -- Mike has down 4 mock brackets already! check them out if you want good info and just mostly no BS analysis from studious fans.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Why's Oklahoma #5? (or, why is the Big 12 on the outside, AGAIN?!?!?!)
I don't blog here often, with the podcast (obviousbrothers) giving me a chance to talk, but I wanted to do something "long form" here -- rant, AGAIN!, about the inconsistency of the College Football Committee.
They constantly ignore the Big 12. You know, they were left out in the first playoff, with TCU having been #3 the week before, mainly because the Big 12 wouldn't pick a winner between TCU and Baylor; now the conference has a weird championship game (who else without divisions has a championship game in BCS?).
This week they have two one-loss teams ahead of Oklahoma, who is, probably, the best Big 12 representative at this point. Oklahoma beat the #6 team, according to the committee, ON THE ROAD. That's the best win anyone currently has (who we are talking about here -- Georgia's win over ND is better, right now, but they are undefeated, so this isn't about them).
Notre Dame, who is #3, according to the committee, has wins AT HOME over #17 USC and #20 NC State. Is it two for one?
Or is it that the committee "likes" ND's loss, AT HOME, by a point to #1 Georgia? More than OU's loss, at home, to #15 Iowa State?
It's not clear.
And Clemson, who is one spot ahead of OU? Their big win is over #14 Auburn -- clearly not a better win -- or #13 Virginia Tech, and their loss is to an unranked Syracuse team -- not a better loss.
So, how does OU end up behind them both?
Anti-Big 12 prejudice.
This may all sort itself out on the field. OU has to play at Ok State this weekend, and at home vs. TCU next weekend -- two wins that would be better than any ND or Clemson would have (until Clemson plays Miami, anyway).
Of course, if OU loses one (never mind both, which is possible), they don't deserve this talk and the team that beats them (say current #11 OSU) would move into the chatter.
But the Big 12 probably won't end up with a playoff berth -- again!
They constantly ignore the Big 12. You know, they were left out in the first playoff, with TCU having been #3 the week before, mainly because the Big 12 wouldn't pick a winner between TCU and Baylor; now the conference has a weird championship game (who else without divisions has a championship game in BCS?).
This week they have two one-loss teams ahead of Oklahoma, who is, probably, the best Big 12 representative at this point. Oklahoma beat the #6 team, according to the committee, ON THE ROAD. That's the best win anyone currently has (who we are talking about here -- Georgia's win over ND is better, right now, but they are undefeated, so this isn't about them).
Notre Dame, who is #3, according to the committee, has wins AT HOME over #17 USC and #20 NC State. Is it two for one?
Or is it that the committee "likes" ND's loss, AT HOME, by a point to #1 Georgia? More than OU's loss, at home, to #15 Iowa State?
It's not clear.
And Clemson, who is one spot ahead of OU? Their big win is over #14 Auburn -- clearly not a better win -- or #13 Virginia Tech, and their loss is to an unranked Syracuse team -- not a better loss.
So, how does OU end up behind them both?
Anti-Big 12 prejudice.
This may all sort itself out on the field. OU has to play at Ok State this weekend, and at home vs. TCU next weekend -- two wins that would be better than any ND or Clemson would have (until Clemson plays Miami, anyway).
Of course, if OU loses one (never mind both, which is possible), they don't deserve this talk and the team that beats them (say current #11 OSU) would move into the chatter.
But the Big 12 probably won't end up with a playoff berth -- again!
Saturday, February 11, 2017
The Big Ten MBB Bubble
Today, the Men's basketball committee puts out the current list of the top 16 -- the top four seeds -- in an attempt to fill the sports talk void created between the Super Bowl and bracket week.
On yesterday's Obvious Brothers podcast (soundcloud.com/obviousbrothers), we discussed not only IU's chances of making the tournament after losing 4 of 5, including at home Thursday night to Purdue, but also the dynamic of the others in the Big Ten (B10) looking to make the tournament.
John said "there are five teams vying for spots." He's wrong.
I think there are at least six -- and that assumes Northwestern is in. I see them as having 3 more league losses, but if that's it, at 11-7 in B10, they are a lock to be in the tournament.
My purpose here is to compare the six B10 teams "on the bubble" and guess who ends up making the field and who doesn't. The six: IU, Iowa, Ohio St, Michigan, Minnesota, and Michigan State.
First, this info: Jerry Palm's bracket yesterday had IU out, Ohio State in, with Michigan, Minnesota and Michigan St.
Joe Lunardi, later in the day, has IU in "last four in," Ohio St out, Michigan "next four out," and Minnesota and Michigan St in.
Note: Iowa gets no mention in either. The Hawkeyes are 6-6 in the league, ONLY 14-11 overall, with an RPI of 96. That last number is going to hurt them in comparison.
So, let's start there, with RPI (Ratings Percentage Index -- it weighs schedule v. wins and losses). In order: MN 21, MSU 49, OSU & Mich 75, IU 76, Iowa 96.
Current records (by B10): MSU 6-5 (14-10), Iowa 6-6 (14-11), Mich 5-6 (15-9), MN 5-6 (17-7), IU & OSU 5-7 (15-10).
Top 50 records: MN 4-5, Mich 5-7, MSU 3-5, IU 3-6, Iowa 5-11, OSU 3-11.
I'll summarize: MN, tho 5-6, has a leg up with both the RPI and Top 50 record and 17 total wins. Mich St looks next best with higher RPI, 6-5 in league. Iowa has to overcome RPI, but 6-6 in league when committee likes teams to have a .500 record, is big. The other three have work to do.
Schedules (in order of B10 standings):
MSU -- IA, OSU, @Purdue (PU), NeB, Wisc, @IL, @MD.
Iowa -- @MSU, IL, IU, @MD, @Wisc, PSU.
MN -- @Rutgers (RU), IU, @MU, @MD, PSU, NEB, WISC.
Mich -- @IU, Wisc, MN, @RU, PU, @NW, @NEB.
IU -- MU, @MN, @IA, NW, @PU, @OSU.
OSU -- @MD, @MSU, NEB, WISC, @PSU, IU.
Note: MN has 5 of last 7 @ home. IU & MU have 4 of 6 on road (and two MU home games are v. WISC & PU).
Okay, with those schedules, I picked the remaining games. Basics: these teams beat each other at home and lose on the road; they also lose to the top 4 (Wisc, PU, MD, NW), period. The one game I might question picking is the NW @ IU game -- NW beat them at home and may be more motivated two weeks from now. I also assume these six don't lose to the bottom four (RU, PSU, NEB, IL), which is iffy, but one has to be positive -- you aren't making the tournament if you can't do that plus.
So, here's how the standings look after that:
MSU 10-8
MN 9-9
IA 9-9
MU 8-10
OSU 7-11
IU 6-12
Who makes the tournament? Assuming B10 gets 7 in, Michigan St, Minnesota and Iowa, with Michigan close. Michigan will be 18-13 to Iowa's 17-14, and will have 2 more Top 50 losses. Turns out, IU needs to win that Northwestern game AND the season finale AT Ohio State to get to 8-10 and 18-13 and be in the mix.
And, of course, winning on Thursday in the B10 tourney, and maybe even Friday to get to the semis, might be HUGE. Iowa in this scenario is the 7 -- now they'd play Purdue on Friday, who they split with in the regular season. Those Friday games might make the difference for either Iowa or Michigan in this scenario.
It'll be fun to watch. I'm sure my assumptions won't hold up, but that's the fun of it, right?
On yesterday's Obvious Brothers podcast (soundcloud.com/obviousbrothers), we discussed not only IU's chances of making the tournament after losing 4 of 5, including at home Thursday night to Purdue, but also the dynamic of the others in the Big Ten (B10) looking to make the tournament.
John said "there are five teams vying for spots." He's wrong.
I think there are at least six -- and that assumes Northwestern is in. I see them as having 3 more league losses, but if that's it, at 11-7 in B10, they are a lock to be in the tournament.
My purpose here is to compare the six B10 teams "on the bubble" and guess who ends up making the field and who doesn't. The six: IU, Iowa, Ohio St, Michigan, Minnesota, and Michigan State.
First, this info: Jerry Palm's bracket yesterday had IU out, Ohio State in, with Michigan, Minnesota and Michigan St.
Joe Lunardi, later in the day, has IU in "last four in," Ohio St out, Michigan "next four out," and Minnesota and Michigan St in.
Note: Iowa gets no mention in either. The Hawkeyes are 6-6 in the league, ONLY 14-11 overall, with an RPI of 96. That last number is going to hurt them in comparison.
So, let's start there, with RPI (Ratings Percentage Index -- it weighs schedule v. wins and losses). In order: MN 21, MSU 49, OSU & Mich 75, IU 76, Iowa 96.
Current records (by B10): MSU 6-5 (14-10), Iowa 6-6 (14-11), Mich 5-6 (15-9), MN 5-6 (17-7), IU & OSU 5-7 (15-10).
Top 50 records: MN 4-5, Mich 5-7, MSU 3-5, IU 3-6, Iowa 5-11, OSU 3-11.
I'll summarize: MN, tho 5-6, has a leg up with both the RPI and Top 50 record and 17 total wins. Mich St looks next best with higher RPI, 6-5 in league. Iowa has to overcome RPI, but 6-6 in league when committee likes teams to have a .500 record, is big. The other three have work to do.
Schedules (in order of B10 standings):
MSU -- IA, OSU, @Purdue (PU), NeB, Wisc, @IL, @MD.
Iowa -- @MSU, IL, IU, @MD, @Wisc, PSU.
MN -- @Rutgers (RU), IU, @MU, @MD, PSU, NEB, WISC.
Mich -- @IU, Wisc, MN, @RU, PU, @NW, @NEB.
IU -- MU, @MN, @IA, NW, @PU, @OSU.
OSU -- @MD, @MSU, NEB, WISC, @PSU, IU.
Note: MN has 5 of last 7 @ home. IU & MU have 4 of 6 on road (and two MU home games are v. WISC & PU).
Okay, with those schedules, I picked the remaining games. Basics: these teams beat each other at home and lose on the road; they also lose to the top 4 (Wisc, PU, MD, NW), period. The one game I might question picking is the NW @ IU game -- NW beat them at home and may be more motivated two weeks from now. I also assume these six don't lose to the bottom four (RU, PSU, NEB, IL), which is iffy, but one has to be positive -- you aren't making the tournament if you can't do that plus.
So, here's how the standings look after that:
MSU 10-8
MN 9-9
IA 9-9
MU 8-10
OSU 7-11
IU 6-12
Who makes the tournament? Assuming B10 gets 7 in, Michigan St, Minnesota and Iowa, with Michigan close. Michigan will be 18-13 to Iowa's 17-14, and will have 2 more Top 50 losses. Turns out, IU needs to win that Northwestern game AND the season finale AT Ohio State to get to 8-10 and 18-13 and be in the mix.
And, of course, winning on Thursday in the B10 tourney, and maybe even Friday to get to the semis, might be HUGE. Iowa in this scenario is the 7 -- now they'd play Purdue on Friday, who they split with in the regular season. Those Friday games might make the difference for either Iowa or Michigan in this scenario.
It'll be fun to watch. I'm sure my assumptions won't hold up, but that's the fun of it, right?
Friday, October 14, 2016
CFB F4 - B12 = Really?!?!
It's early to start the CFB Final 4 sweepstakes, but I kept hearing stuff this week that I just had to say "really?!?!!?"
The analysis, heard multiple times this week, was essentially this about the Final 4 field --
-- Alabama
-- the winner of Ohio State/Michigan
-- Clemson
-- Washington.
Most discussion beyond this was about "if one of those doesn't work out, does Louisville, the Ohio State-Michigan loser, etc" get in?
The Big 12 winner was never mentioned.
Currently, TWO Big 12 teams are undefeated. True, I have West Virginia losing this weekend, knocking that to one, but Baylor is undefeated. And, true, just as in the last two years, Baylor's schedule is backloaded -- they have to play TCU and Oklahoma, for two, yet.
Why isn't Baylor mentioned?
Two years ago, Ohio State came from "nowhere" (they were Ohio State, not exactly the Houston of CFB programs) to make the final four and then win the national championship.
Baylor isn't as far back as Ohio State was, and their schedule doesn't look as difficult as it once did, now that both Oklahoma and Texas have multiple losses.
I'll stop here with this: watch Baylor. Even a one-loss Big 12 champ might look good, depending on how those others do -- and there are a lot of potential losses on those five teams' schedules over the next 7 weeks.
The analysis, heard multiple times this week, was essentially this about the Final 4 field --
-- Alabama
-- the winner of Ohio State/Michigan
-- Clemson
-- Washington.
Most discussion beyond this was about "if one of those doesn't work out, does Louisville, the Ohio State-Michigan loser, etc" get in?
The Big 12 winner was never mentioned.
Currently, TWO Big 12 teams are undefeated. True, I have West Virginia losing this weekend, knocking that to one, but Baylor is undefeated. And, true, just as in the last two years, Baylor's schedule is backloaded -- they have to play TCU and Oklahoma, for two, yet.
Why isn't Baylor mentioned?
Two years ago, Ohio State came from "nowhere" (they were Ohio State, not exactly the Houston of CFB programs) to make the final four and then win the national championship.
Baylor isn't as far back as Ohio State was, and their schedule doesn't look as difficult as it once did, now that both Oklahoma and Texas have multiple losses.
I'll stop here with this: watch Baylor. Even a one-loss Big 12 champ might look good, depending on how those others do -- and there are a lot of potential losses on those five teams' schedules over the next 7 weeks.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
What to do with your Bracket (2016)
Hi all -- it's that time of year again -- we all want to win the pool! And, to quote Mike Golic, "win the cashe"...
So, here's what I have about filling out this year's bracket, starting with generic notions of bracket filling, then some specifics.
General rules:
So, here's what I have about filling out this year's bracket, starting with generic notions of bracket filling, then some specifics.
General rules:
- "Chalk" is neither good nor bad: only once have all four #1 seeds made the Final Four (F4); yet remember that 19 of last 31 titles have come from #1s;
- 12s beat 5's -- one did so for 8 straight years until last year. The trick, of course, is to figure out which one, and not miss two games instead of none;
- A double-digit seed for many years has made it to the round of 16. The last two years, one of those has come from a Wednesday night game (this year it's Michigan v. Tulsa [the one no one thinks belongs in the tournament, excepting OC the committee] or Holy Cross v. Southern [remember this is a 16 game and no 16 has ever beaten a 1];
- Never have all top 4 seeds in all regions made it to the Sweet 16; "chalk" only takes you so far;
- Remember -- in every pool the number of points increases with each round (often doubling); worrying about the first round upset -- say a 12-5 -- when they won't get beyond the round of 16 is a waste of effort. The money is in the final four and picking the right winner -- often, you will notice, many will have the winner (this year leaning heavily toward Kansas, Michigan St, or North Carolina) but the money winner will have the most F4 teams & a semifinal winner or two. Put your effort into the end, not the beginning.
This year -- there is a consensus of "experts" (I've read fivethirtyeight, ESPN analysts, listened to Mike & Mike's analysis and brackets for two days, and two days of XM College sports)
- Kentucky and Indiana are underseeded and shouldn't be playing each other so early;
- Tulsa and Syracuse don't belong in the field;
- The PAC-12 was good, but almost everyone has Oregon losing before the F4;
- Point guards and great coaches win tournament games -- so Denzel Valentine and Coach Izzo looks awfully good. Few others have that quality of the same combination;
So, here's what I have (with the codicil for those in pools with me that I get to change between now and the deadline) --
F4: Kansas (1), Oklahoma (2), West Virginia (3), and Michigan State (2).
I know that's 3 Big XII teams, but they are all good and the matchups work -- first, I don't see anyone who I'm feeling good about beating Kansas in their bracket (Miami, but they haven't won a lot of tournament games in their history and didn't even get to the final of their tournament); second, OU is the 2 in the region with the weakest 1 seed; third, West Virginia's press torments teams and Xavier might handle it but one suspects playing UNC on short turnaround will not bode well for the Heels; finally, Michigan St is the best team playing in the tournament as of Sunday (who knows if it'll continue), and they've beaten Virginia the last two years in the tournament (their style matches up with UVA's well), and they matchup well with anyone else they play before then.
Upsets: I like VCU (10) over Oregon State (7)(the most overseeded team in the tournament); Michigan (11) to beat Notre Dame (6) [the Wednesday night tendency]; I have 3 9's beating 8's, but stats indicate that's almost a 50-50 game [no surprise].
Yes, I have Baylor (5) beating Oregon (if you've seen Baylor on a good night, you'll know why), which is my biggest late upset.
Now you know. Use it as you dare. Good luck in your brackets, as long as you let me win the cashe!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)